Graybeard Outdoors banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,523 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
N.J. Court Says Americans Have No Right To Buy Handguns

by Declan McCullagh

October 28, 2009 7:50 PM


(AP Photo/Judi Bottoni)[/color]

A New Jersey appeals court has concluded that Americans have no Second Amendment right to buy a handgun.

In a case decided last week, the superior court upheld a state law saying that nobody may possess "any handgun" without obtaining law enforcement approval and permission in advance.

That outcome might seem like something of a surprise, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year in the D.C. v. Heller case that the Second Amendment guarantees "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

But New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Stephen Skillman wrote on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel that Heller "has no impact upon the constitutionality of" the state law.

That's because, Skillman said, the Supreme Court did not strike down the District of Columbia's de facto handgun ban but instead simply ordered the city to issue a permit. In other words, while Americans may have the right in general to possess arms, the exact contours of that right have not been mapped, especially as the Second Amendment applies to state laws. (The court's majority opinion last year said: "We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.")

Look for the Supreme Court to revisit this question in a few months when it hears a case called McDonald v. Chicago. It's a constitutional challenge to Chicago's restrictive gun laws, which prohibit anyone from possessing firearms -- even in their homes -- "unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm."

New Jersey's laws are similar. They say: "No person shall sell, give, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of, nor receive, purchase, or otherwise acquire a handgun unless the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver or holder... has first secured a permit to purchase a handgun as provided by this section."

Another section dealing with licensing says: "No person of good character and good repute in the community in which he lives, and who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in this section or other sections of this chapter, shall be denied a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, except as hereinafter set forth." Some of the exceptions involve criminal records, for instance.

What prompted the current lawsuit was a request for a handgun purchase permit that Anthony Dubov submitted to the East Windsor Chief of Police. The police chief denied Dubov's request without giving any reason, in what the appeals court later ruled was a violation of state law. The current East Windsor police chief is William Spain.

Oddly, the trial judge upheld that denial, without asking the police chief to testify to explain himself (another violation of state law) and after taking the unusual step of contacting Dubov's previous employers to ask about his background.

Dubov's attorney, Michael Nieschmidt, argued that the state licensing scheme was unconstitutionally vague and therefore violated the Second Amendment.

Skillman concluded that while the Second Amendment doesn't apply, state law and precedent nevertheless required that Dubov receive more due process than he did. The appeals court wrote: "Accordingly, the trial court's affirmance of the police chief's denial of appellant's application for a firearms purchase permit is reversed, and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing in conformity with this opinion."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/28/taking_liberties/entry5440647.shtml

Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at [email protected] and is on Twitter as declanm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,523 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Yeah, that's right, they just had an election in NJ. Let's see if the folks there will be singing "the times they are a changing."
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,517 Posts
This area of law is complicated right now. The case heard last year was unique in that it applied to a local Federal rule. Obviously that applies very narrowly and provides almost no direction for states and local governments. This session the SCOTUS chose to hear McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) and hopefully it will clear some things up. I wouldn't spend a lot of energy thinking about local laws until we have word from the top.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,526 Posts
OK, I don't care any more. Until neu joisey just elected a Republican gover-nator it was just a bought and paid for suburb of bloomberg city.

It doesn't matter if they elected a republican or not, the place has the highest crime rate, lowest intelligence level and highest number of mentally ill liberals and left leaning dumbocraps in the country short of the Barbary Coast.

I say we just oughta burn the dang state down, right to the ground and then go west and do the same thing in the guber-nator's state. Then we can divide'm up: north and south kaliphornia, west joisey (leave the rest as the western state of bloomberg), and do the same with neu yawk; just combine the stink holes of east joisey and neu yawk bloomberg and call it a district - don't give them any congressional voting rights and turn west joisey and northern ny into free standing states.

Dang! where's my book of matches............................
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,523 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
You just settle down Mikey, you know we can't torch New Jersey until after the Soprano's Movie is made. :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,845 Posts
It is also legal in New Jersey to abort healthy babies MINUTES BEFORE they are delivered naturally, in other words healthy full term babies can be aborted at the last minute before birth if the mother changes her mind. This is the NJ voter's fault to allow such things. They are either not paying attention, or simply don't care, and heathens are running the state government. :'( :( :mad:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,526 Posts
Dee: I do not yet know which makes me the most nauseated - to think that someone can murder a full term baby just moments before its birth or just leave the hapless infant on the steps of a police station or fire department, without repercusion, when and if you don't want it any more.

I will tell you now that if I e-mail you my address and you send me a book of matches I will put them to good use, in neu jersey.......................
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,845 Posts
I think I will pass on that offer but, it is frustrating and both parties are guilty.
I have often wondered why, when people ask Republican candidates running for office:Do you believe in abortion, and they come back with their standard answer of: NO. WHY! WHY! WHY! Is the second question NEVER ASKED OR ANSWERED? Which is: If I give you my vote, and you win, what are you going to do about.
It's never asked, and they never do anything about it. It's a "feel good" topic for election debates that makes the Christian "FEEL GOOD AND BEING CONSIDERED" but is a worthless topic. Neither party intends to buck the lobbyists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,618 Posts
BBF said:
Well there is a different wind blowing in NJ now, we'll see if it changes that Judges mind unless he wants to be "un-benched" :D
Don't count on it.
The people in NJ had huge taxes and low employment.
many that live in NJ work in NYC and NYC also taxes them. People in NJ were able to Keep 25-40% of their pay. They voted for a fiscal conservitive. Don't plan on the social conservitives to make head way till the finacial problems are gone and there are jobs that keep people off the streets the citys will vote for what they think of as safety.
What we need is for a conservitive to explain financial security. We need to use the same Liberal arguments against them.
The liberals use the "It may offend some" arguement about religous items (The 10 Commandments, "under God", and nativity sceenes) and apply them to the lefts ideas.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,845 Posts
You are correct mcwoodduck, and northern educated, and raised voters in large POPULATED AREAS, will vote for SECURITY over FREEDOM, HABITUALLY. They fail to understand the concept of one over the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,618 Posts
I grew up in NJ and dumbfounded by the "smart people" that do not get the basic ideas.
I was lucky enough to go to really good schools with great teachers that made us think.
Especally Col Brown, Mrs Huber, and Mr Garside (thank you)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,845 Posts
mcwoodduck said:
I grew up in NJ and dumbfounded by the "smart people" that do not get the basic ideas.
I was lucky enough to go to really good schools with great teachers that made us think.
Especally Col Brown, Mrs Huber, and Mr Garside (thank you)
Ahhh yes! But how many of the voting population there think like you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,618 Posts
Too few.
Bunch of sheep or lemmings that want to be cool and fit in with what they feel should be right. The snobbery is over welming, and the "we need to take care of the others abounds. And they really do not like it when you point out that they are racist in thinking that the Blacks, browns or others could not make it with out them, and do not understand that reverse racism only promotes more racism.
Although you start making fun of them and point out some truths and use the liberal lie and philosiphy against them and they start to see the light. Also you point out the "party of free speach" limits it. Shut up unless you agree with me! is becomming the liberal rule, and if they are willing to ignore the 1st ammendment how many more are far behind. 4th, 5th, 8th??? They always talk about the slippery slope. I use it against them. They also confuse the right to free speach with the right to be heard.
I turned two of my friends here in CA from hard liberals to Conservitives in a few years.
I also point out global warming is a huge joke, and let them rail and then start asking questions and using history.
When I was 18 and registered to vote, I signed up as an Independant. I figured I did not know enough about politics to join a party and wanted to vote based on the issue rather than the party. Not knowing it was the left wing of the democrat party in NJ. My Father was so upset when all this communist literature started showing up in the mail. The next week I re registered and sent a formal registered mail letter to the independant party explaining my mistake and to please remove me from all of their rolls.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top